Posts
I used to have this annual ritual that began every September. Each day for two months I would check the British Airways Web site to see what specials they were having. I remember one year, I found a three-day sale in which roundtrip tickets from DFW to London were $99 each. That was cheaper than flying from here to Austin. Of course, you had to travel between Nov. 1 and March 31, not the height of the tourist season in Great Britain, but for $99 who cares.
Another time I found a package deal on the BA Web site -- one week in London and one week in Paris for $600 a person. That price included all air fares and hotel costs. My son and I spent our first week in London and just as we were ready to check out of the hotel and take the train out to Heathrow, British Airways called to inform us that firemen were on strike in Paris (some outfit is always on strike in France.) Since firemen had to be on duty at the airport, that presented a problem. The airline said there were a number of possibilities -- our flight could takeoff and land as scheduled, it could be delayed or it could be cancelled. The caller gave us two options: (1) We could head to Heathrow and take our chances or (2) our tickets would be honored on Eurostar, the high-speed rail from London to Paris. I immediately chose option No. 2.
A couple of years earlier I had taken that same rail the other way, from Paris to London and I knew the benefits. The actual trip -- from hotel to hotel -- took much less time by rail than it did by air, mainly because of the time saved traveling from downtown to the far-flung airports in both cities. Plus, on the train, it was much easier to get out of your seat and walk around and, of course, the scenes out the window were far superior.
On the French side of the channel, the train reached speeds of almost 200 miles an hour. A couple of days after arriving in Paris, my son and I were standing on line waiting to get into the Louvre and we struck up a conversation with a French couple from Calais. They had driven to Paris and told us that they were driving close to 100 miles an hour on the main motorway when the Eurostar sped past them "as though we were standing still." (The picture above left shows the Eurostar arriving in the London station.)
I mention all this because, unless you have spent time enjoying rail travel, perhaps it's difficult to realize all the benefits it can bring. And perhaps it's because the dunces in the Texas Legislature have never enjoyed riding in anything but a Ford pickup, they are acting like idiots while discussing transportation options for the state, options they are making sure don't include rail.
While a group of farsighted North Central Texans (a phrase I once considered an oxymoron), tried to fashion legislation (albeit terribly misguided legislation) that would have funded about 200 miles of additional rail lines in the area, the Texas Legislature has decided that 25 percent of the money raised by this plan must go to schools and the other 75 percent can only be spent on highways and bridges.
This entire mess reminds me of the campaign used to convince Dallas-area voters to approve a .5 cent sales tax hike to fund the construction of rail in Dallas, what we now know as DART. The campaign was based on the notion that approval of this sales tax would decrease highway congestion in the area. Even then I thought that was the wrong argument and today we see traffic problems are worse than they were when this sales tax proposal was suggested.
But the real reason I thought that was a stupid argument was because of the "why." Why would someone be so interested in reducing traffic congestion. The only answer possible was so it would make it easier for that person to drive around town. In other words, they weren't going to be pried from their pickup truck. It's that same 200-years-behind-the-times attitude that still exists in this state.
It will still take elections to pass what the Legislature is considering -- a 10-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax increase to fund all this highway construction. I will do whatever I can (which is probably not all that much) to defeat such a proposal since I have gone on record many times as opposing any transportation option that does not include a rail component.
I must also add that I am crushed by the white-flag waving comments made by people like Rowlett Mayor John Harper who was quoted as saying "I suppose 'half a loaf' is better than none." (No, it isn't, John) and Michael Morris, transportation director for the North Central Texas Council of Governments, who said his staff would waste little time crying over the lost opportunity for rail -- they'd quickly follow with a list of road projects that counties could place before voters as soon as 2010.
That's the kind of cowardly leadership that will forever condemn Texas to remain 100 years behind the times.
Another time I found a package deal on the BA Web site -- one week in London and one week in Paris for $600 a person. That price included all air fares and hotel costs. My son and I spent our first week in London and just as we were ready to check out of the hotel and take the train out to Heathrow, British Airways called to inform us that firemen were on strike in Paris (some outfit is always on strike in France.) Since firemen had to be on duty at the airport, that presented a problem. The airline said there were a number of possibilities -- our flight could takeoff and land as scheduled, it could be delayed or it could be cancelled. The caller gave us two options: (1) We could head to Heathrow and take our chances or (2) our tickets would be honored on Eurostar, the high-speed rail from London to Paris. I immediately chose option No. 2.
A couple of years earlier I had taken that same rail the other way, from Paris to London and I knew the benefits. The actual trip -- from hotel to hotel -- took much less time by rail than it did by air, mainly because of the time saved traveling from downtown to the far-flung airports in both cities. Plus, on the train, it was much easier to get out of your seat and walk around and, of course, the scenes out the window were far superior.
On the French side of the channel, the train reached speeds of almost 200 miles an hour. A couple of days after arriving in Paris, my son and I were standing on line waiting to get into the Louvre and we struck up a conversation with a French couple from Calais. They had driven to Paris and told us that they were driving close to 100 miles an hour on the main motorway when the Eurostar sped past them "as though we were standing still." (The picture above left shows the Eurostar arriving in the London station.)
I mention all this because, unless you have spent time enjoying rail travel, perhaps it's difficult to realize all the benefits it can bring. And perhaps it's because the dunces in the Texas Legislature have never enjoyed riding in anything but a Ford pickup, they are acting like idiots while discussing transportation options for the state, options they are making sure don't include rail.
While a group of farsighted North Central Texans (a phrase I once considered an oxymoron), tried to fashion legislation (albeit terribly misguided legislation) that would have funded about 200 miles of additional rail lines in the area, the Texas Legislature has decided that 25 percent of the money raised by this plan must go to schools and the other 75 percent can only be spent on highways and bridges.
This entire mess reminds me of the campaign used to convince Dallas-area voters to approve a .5 cent sales tax hike to fund the construction of rail in Dallas, what we now know as DART. The campaign was based on the notion that approval of this sales tax would decrease highway congestion in the area. Even then I thought that was the wrong argument and today we see traffic problems are worse than they were when this sales tax proposal was suggested.
But the real reason I thought that was a stupid argument was because of the "why." Why would someone be so interested in reducing traffic congestion. The only answer possible was so it would make it easier for that person to drive around town. In other words, they weren't going to be pried from their pickup truck. It's that same 200-years-behind-the-times attitude that still exists in this state.
It will still take elections to pass what the Legislature is considering -- a 10-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax increase to fund all this highway construction. I will do whatever I can (which is probably not all that much) to defeat such a proposal since I have gone on record many times as opposing any transportation option that does not include a rail component.
I must also add that I am crushed by the white-flag waving comments made by people like Rowlett Mayor John Harper who was quoted as saying "I suppose 'half a loaf' is better than none." (No, it isn't, John) and Michael Morris, transportation director for the North Central Texas Council of Governments, who said his staff would waste little time crying over the lost opportunity for rail -- they'd quickly follow with a list of road projects that counties could place before voters as soon as 2010.
That's the kind of cowardly leadership that will forever condemn Texas to remain 100 years behind the times.
1 comment:
If rail is so wonderful, why aren't the people who ride it willing to pay for it? Why must the taxpayers pay all of the constructions costs and 80-90% of the operating costs. Rail isn't transportation, it's welfare masquerading as nostalgia.
This country used to have the greatest rail system in the world. Now we don't. Why? Because it's obsolete. We don't need it any more. It's been replaced by other transportation methods that are more flexible, that people prefer and that people are actually willing to pay for.
It's not the 19th century any more. it's time to look forward, not backward.
Post a Comment